Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?

Saturday, November 07, 2015

Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, by John C. Sanford,

Why Basic Genetics and Mutations disprove Evolution

by StFerdIII

Phd, renowned scientist and the inventor of the gene gun, now widely used in agribusiness, Sanford does not believe [gasp], that monkeys became men. Nor does he believe that chimps fell out of trees on a bright, sunny African afternoon some 3 million years ago, and started to walk, with Lucy the mother chimp of us all, firmly out front during the stroll holding her immaculate conception. Imagine that. Surely this man is a cretin, a creationist, a fundamentalist, a lunatic, and obviously he is a science denier. If we are not careful these crazies are going to challenge pond scum to people theology, panspermia, pregnant black holes and multiverses, not to mention abiogenesis, and nothing created everything.

Or maybe Sanford is just a real scientist. The mathematical probability of meta-evolution being true is less than zero. Complexity does not happen out of chaos. Randomness leads to disorder not structure. And there is not enough time in the Darwinian fable for a monkey to become man. Not even close. Mutations kill, they don't add value. 2nd law of Thermodynamics which evolution offends is that all systems, open, closed, hybrid, will fail. There is no evidence that mutations will take the fruit fly and turn it into the fruit bat.

From Sanford's book we can learn:

-The net effect of random mutations is degradation or complete destruction of function. After decades of research, if even one mutation out of a million really unambiguously created new information (apart from fine-tuning), we would all have heard about it by now (p. 17). There is no evidence that mutations add value. Absolutely none.

-When there are changes in say bacteria, this is the case of turning software or DNA code on (p. 19). In other words the functionality is already there. The changes typically involve modification of one or two nucleotides, (p. 19).

-If mutations are so beneficial why don't people enter x-ray machines every day and bombard their genes with radiation ? Surely Hiroshima should have produced super men ? On the contrary, as Sanford writes, health policies are in place aimed at reducing or minimizing mutations (p. 15).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

-Sanford provides a devastating scientific fact, fully consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but opposed to Evolution. It is now accepted that mutations in human reproductive cells are in the range of at least 100–300 per individual each generation (p. 34). In other words all systems of all types eventually implode.

-Other kinds of mutations, such as deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, micro-satellite mutations and all mitochondrial mutations worsen the above situation. In general per person, per generation we have about 1,000 nucleotide changes in every person, every generation (p. 37).

-Even if we use the lowest possible mutation number of 100 mutations per generation, and assume wrongly and utterly incorrectly, that 97% of the genome is not being used; Sanford estimates that at least 3 new mutations are being produced per individual in each generation. The number of course is significantly higher. (p. 34) Most geneticists who study the issue believe that we have 30 mutation per person, per generation. 99% of mutations are deleterious or neutral.

-Human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million, inherited in toto, and never break apart (p. 55, 81). A desirable trait will be accompanied by an undesirable trait, within the same individual (p. 79). In other words, we are not becoming better or more beautiful or smarter. The entire human genome package is in fact worsening. You can't simply add 'good mutations' which rarely exist anyways [<.01 % of the total].

-Therefore, within any physical linkage unit, on average, thousands of deleterious mutations would accumulate before a beneficial mutation would arise (p. 82). All of the individual 100,000–200,000 linkage blocks in genomes are deteriorating.

To bring down a software system – and that is what the human body is – you only need to infect about 3-10% of it. You don't need to erase all of the programs within the software structure. Just a small percentage, as in the case of cancer, will do it. Cancer might affect less than 1% of a certain regions cellular makeup. But that is enough to kill the human.

Sanford:

“The literature is full of statements and abstruse computer programs claiming natural selection can perform near miracles.But after 25 years of searching, I have yet to find an analogy or computer model backing up this claim which has any biological relevance.” (p. 50)

The virgin births and miracles of Darwin's cult. Never backed up by science.

Computer models are largely fraudulent. I can give you whatever answer you desire by programming into the logic, the desired outcomes. It is not that hard to do. Biology and real life are different. There is no random chance algorithm, leading to ever more beautiful structures and change. There is no market place of code I can download, to allow for natural selection and meta-mutation, where for example a reptile wanders off to the market and selects to become a bird, replacing his entire software system in some wondrous Star Trekesque download sequence. This is nonsense and fiction not science. And that about sums up Evolution.